NOW: The Real Whore

By Lloyd the Idiot

The National Organization for Women, which so fervently demanded the expulsion of Sen. David Vitter after he allegedly hired a prostitute, has said absolutely NOTHING about the Obama Secret Service’s prostitution debacle in Columbia. Not a peep. How could that ever be with NOW sooooo very committed to ending violence and discrimination against women, particularly after the position they took on Sen. Vitter?

Could it be because they are really just the Democrats’ little whores?


Comments

  • Ed Myers says:

    Security breach is the issue for the ss. It is an operational problem. Vitter provided an opportunity to discuss policy. He is a strategic problem. Why would NOW who lobbies for policy change care (strategic decisions) comment about Obama security ( operational issues)?

    I see apples and carrots. You have to have more than the word prostitute to get an overlapping political venn diagram from two stories.

  • Hardly, Ed.

    You really think that NOW wouldn’t care if it were a Republican president?

  • Lest anyone consider the term”whore” offensive, consider the remarks of NOW’s Caifornia president about Meg Whitman

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/14/meg-whitman-whore-now_n_763211.html

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Very good point, Lloyd.

  • TCJohnson says:

    Aybe they would be more upset if the administration hadn’t already denounced what had happened and if the people involved weren’t already losing their jobs.

  • Baron Rosedown says:

    Lloyd – I’m not a fan of NOW or what they stand for, because they are often hypocritical.

    That said, NOW focuses on state-side issues. But pinning this against party v. party is wrong. Given that the GOP has made the social issues their priority, of course NOW is closely affiliated with the Dems. Since the Dems seem to be the party that wants to protect women’s rights, while the GOP has proven they want to dictate what happens with a women’s vagina (especially in VA).

    What happened in Columbia was unfortunate, but the brass inside the agency has taken swift & decisive action. Bottom line is several veteran agents, made a personal decision to throw away their venerable careers for a piece of high priced ass, but they were too cheap to pay the whore her going rate. If you are going to pay for sex – pay the full rate or expect someone is going to expose your philandering ways.

  • John Marsh says:

    This is the kind of inane entry that keeps sane folk from talking TC seriously. But one can perhaps admire TC’s capacity to dwell on the dog bites of daily affairs.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Give us a break, JM, NOW has been blatantly partisan for ages now. I still can’t believe how easy they were on Bill Clinton – perhaps you can remind me how they came out forcefully against a President getting sexual favors from an intern.

  • JM, show me one time in recent history NOW has come down on a Dem. Hell, look at Weiner. Where were they then? Answer: they said they had to “give him the benefit of the doubt” — as if there were ANY doubt. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-12/news/29667777_1_sexting-huma-abedin-weiner

    Like so many purportedy party-neutral political organizations, but particularly liberal ones, NOW allocates righteous indignation by party affiliation.

    Disgusting hypocrites.

    As for not being taken seriously, I couldn’t give a damn who thinks what about my posts.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Case closed on JM complaint – good work, Lloyd. Excusing Wiener has to be the last straw.

    Cato, that is a hilarious photo. Still waiting on an explanation of NOW’s actions regarding Clinton.

  • TCJohnson says:

    Well, Weiner didn’t involve a prostitute.

    Now if they didn’t come out against Spitzer, that is hypocracy.

    Can somebody explain to me, however, why this is a partisan issue? Obama did not hire these agents, he didn’t assign them to this detail, he didn’t supervise them (nor is it his job.). So
    How is this a partisan issue?

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Blaming Obama for this is ridiculous, it’s obvious the Secret Service after hours parties have been going on for some time.

    But NOW is absolutely partisan.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    NOW is so focused on Limbaugh they don’t have time for Bill Maher, who’s said much worse a lot more often, and then says “F you” instead of “I apologize, you’re right, that was inappropriate” if someone brings it to his attention. I’d say they’re pretty partisan.
    —————————————-
    JM, dog bite? funny!

  • James Young says:

    Lloyd, you’ve obviously learned the first rule of witness examination: Never ask a question to which you don’t already know the answer.

  • NOW is partisan. So what? So is CWA. Or Focus on the Family. Let me know when we have a man bites dog post!

    (And I am all for the swift and merciless firing of anyone involved in this debacle.)

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Gretchen, “man bites dog” has been around since someone decided to make Romney’s dog a burning national campaign issue, without reading “Dreams From My Father” thoroughly first…

  • Or maybe some of us did read it and didn’t think it was that important? Sort of like the drug use?

    Or, to put a Republican spin on it — like Bush’s drunk driving and National Guard service?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Then I’m guessing that would make Romney’s dog a non-issue too? :)

  • Cato the Elder says:

    You have to admit that the whole dog-eating thing has been fodder for some great jokes.

  • Sane Person says:

    I often come to this blog for a sober assessment of things. But to equate the actions of some low level civil servants with the long-term extramarital affair of an elected U.S. senator who repeatedly proclaims his morality and righteousness is really dumb. Not sure how you drag NOW into it.
    Guess that’s how you got the name “the Idiot.”

  • Sane, NOW brings itself into these things, well, except when it involves a Democrat.

    Oh, and I’m not sober either

  • Barbara — Romney’s dog issue is a non-issue to me. Of course, I also had a father who refused to make any stops once the car started going! (Our dog rode in the back, though.) And I’ll admit, once we get on the road, I hate having to stop myself!

  • Wow! I just clicked on cato’s link

    Very funny

  • Elder Berry says:

    “Obama’s” Secret Service?

    Those are career agency positions, not political appointments, fool, and it certainly wasn’t Obama trying to short the prostitute, or did you miss that part.

    A stretch too far to slam at NOW, sorry.

  • EB, neither you nor anyone else has answered my question as to whether NOW would have taken a different position had the president been a Republican. Clearly, given their history, they would have. they do themselves, and that their cause, an incredible disservice by ignoring the actions of one political party. Even the ACLU, for all its faults, is more politically balanced in its approach.

  • I just can’t let this go.
    Columbia is a worldwide leader in child enslavement and prostitution, all of which is fed by the acts of the Secret Service. yet NOW says nothing. Simply appalling.

  • Blackout says:

    Lloyd, this is only an issue if NOWs activism is inappropriate as opposed to their inactivism. Just attacking them for what they “do not do” seems to be a fizzle. Do you have issues with what they do get involved with? Seems to me they do good work on things they feel like getting involved in. Doesn’t lessen the importance. So what if they seem (and likely) only choose one side over they other. Maybe they need more cash so they can expand their efforts.

  • TCJohnson says:

    LLoyd, what I am confused about is who do you think that NOW should be critisizing over this?

    Obama isn’t really to blame. He does not manage the secret service.

    The people who do manage the secret service are already taking action. They have removed 6 agents from positions of authority (fired five, gave one a desk job.)

    The agents themselves? They have already lost their jobs, their pensions and their security clearence which will make it hard for them to get future jobs.

    So I am just curious, keeping that in mind, if you were now what would your criticism be?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Lloyd doesn’t like NOW. I get it.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Maybe he’s just hoping they would be consistent in demanding results in practice that correspond with what they preach, no matter WHO is engaging in any practices they preach against?

  • Blackout says:

    Barbara, do you have an issue with those things they do choose to get involved in?

  • Listen, I could get along without them altogether just fine. it’s their selective enforcement that proves, once again, they are just a front for Democratic causes, regardless of the effects on women. clearly, if this were a Republican administration they would be all over it.And I haven’t heard anyone disagree with that position.

  • Blackout says:

    Lloyd, I gotta think it is just hard to find any woman who can advocate on anything that supports the GOP these days. There is the outrage. NOW is a private organization they advocate for what they deem fit. And I’ve not heard anyone complain about what they advocate for just what they don’t advocate for.

  • Sane Person says:

    Lloyd, It doesn’t have anything to do with who the president is. I doubt they would say anything about this if a Republican were president. It’s just wrong, regardless. Sort of like the mass killing in Afghanistan. Not a political thing. Just obviously wrong. Not really that controversial, in a political context.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “Maybe he’s just hoping they would be consistent in demanding results in practice that correspond with what they preach, no matter WHO is engaging in any practices they preach against?”

    Shall we go down the list of organizations that fall into this category? We’ll be here all day…

  • enviroman says:

    On the idiot scale, this is a 10 (extremely idiotic).

  • AFF says:

    Respectfully, you jumped the shark good on this try Lloyd.

  • Elder Berry says:

    Barbara, given who the Republican party is running for president, demanding consistency from anyone is a shaky if not untenable position for any Republican to take, don’t ya think? Or maybe not because that would mean that you had to be being consistent.

    This thread is a joke. The RNC just came out and said that Romney’s economic policy would be the same as Bush’s. How about we talk about that instead, huh. Is the Bush economic debacle the best the Republican party can do for the US.

  • “Lloyd, It doesn’t have anything to do with who the president is. I doubt they would say anything about this if a Republican were president”

    There goes your credibility flying out the window.

  • Ref says:

    This is disheartening. I typically appreciate your posts, Lloyd, but this seems vapid. This is not a political issue nor an issue for an organization that is strictly dedicated to women’s rights in the USA.

    NOW’s mission statement is: “To take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.”

    I can’t fathom any connection between this Secret Service flap and NOW. Perhaps I’m missing something.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    You people are going way overboard on Lloyd. He is not alleging any direct connection between the Secret Service and NOW, he is simply pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of NOW and their selective complaining, depending on the party affiliation of the offenders. No one has yet to produce the actions of NOW protesting Bill Clinton’s behavior towards a subordinate yet as I requested.

    I am no fan of either party these days, so I despise homers for both major parties. NOW is an absolute homer for the Dems.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    Yes. You are all missing something. Lloyd is not only right. He is completely right.

    And it is the disconnect in his thinking (and mine) and yours that is making partisanship rise.

    If you want to defend NOW and somehow not partisan, then I challenge you to post links to 5 instances in the last 6 months of NOW attacking a liberal or Democrat figure.

    Jeez….. If you people can’t even be honest. i mean intellectually honest….

  • TCJohnson says:

    “If you want to defend NOW and somehow not partisan, then I challenge you to post links to 5 instances in the last 6 months of NOW attacking a liberal or Democrat figure.”

    I don’t think anybody is defending NOW as non-partisan…at least haven’t read it that way.

    I believe people are saying that this is a really bad example of NOWs partisanship. Politically, this whole thing is a non issue and people are having trouble understanding why any political party would get involved in this.

  • TCJohnson says:

    “No one has yet to produce the actions of NOW protesting Bill Clinton’s behavior towards a subordinate yet as I requested.”

    Because THAT would be a good example of their being hypocritical.

    I will give you a better one: why didn’t they go after Elliot Spitzer?

    This secret service stuff? I can’t see how it would be an issue for them.

    (Although, to be fair, I just found an article about NOW going after David Letterman for stuff he said about Sarah Palin.)

  • I personally can’t stand Eliot Spitzer.

Leave Comment